12 minutes ago, Slides said:

Yeah and I'm telling you that graphics fidelity is a big part of FPS in a flight simulator. This is not a procedure simulator. I don't think you understand what this is.

I'm pretty sure I do understand what my own comment was in relation to. You probably would too if you actually bothered to read it in the context to which it was made. 🤣

Edited July 30, 20205 yr by Chock

7 minutes ago, The_sas_man said:

watch the Digital Foundry video. You keep spurting off things that are totally unfounded. You can see he hits 60fps at Ultra on 4k! 

Whats unfounded about my expectations though?

The techcrunch article is fantastic.

About all I will say, is that I have never in my life wanted to fly GA aircraft around to just sight-see. Gimmie systems, and big jets, etc. What ASOBO has done, changed that. Completely.

8 minutes ago, ThomseN_inc said:

Whats unfounded about my expectations though?

Expectation: "I really hoped that the times of "Yeah 30FPS is really all you need!" were coming to an end."

Reality from DF video: 60fps on Ultra @ 4k

Therefore your expectation is unfounded. 

but it's resolution scaled down and lower settings outside of the city. You have to pay attention of where they are flying and which view they add (outside view). The details are there. you just have to look for them.

Those are two pair of shoes i think. Reading this forum cleary shows that there are still people around stating that 24FPS movies are smooth and a sim only needs 35FPS. So basically my expectation wasn't met here.

Regarding the performance of MSFS i based my posts on the article i read earlier and what i saw on YT. So i think my posts were as founded as can be at this moment.

We'll see what the future brings.

Edited July 30, 20205 yr by ThomseN_inc

4 hours ago, cepact said:

I think at this point we have to accept the fact that we will sadly never have a flight simulator running smoothly at 60 fps

You can have this (also in VR) with Aerofly FS2, but I don't know really if someone can call Aerofly a flight simulator, as it is "too naked".

Cheers, Ed

 

4 hours ago, vin747 said:

It is still a great sim for VFR, no doubt about it..

Too bad that VR support comes at least two months after release. And even then only limited to the new HP Reverb G2 at first. 😉

I have a i7 8700k 4,9 ghh and a gtx 1080 i guess i can run it fine in 1440p high settings. i would not even try ultra in everything.

sorry gtx 1080TI 

27 minutes ago, The_sas_man said:

Expectation: "I really hoped that the times of "Yeah 30FPS is really all you need!" were coming to an end."

Reality from DF video: 60fps on Ultra @ 4k

Therefore your expectation is unfounded. 

Mind pointing me to where they hit 60FPS@4k and maintain them? I think i missed that part.

45 minutes ago, Chock said:

I'm pretty sure I do understand what my own comment was in relation to. You probably would too if you actually bothered to read it in the context to which it was made. 🤣

And I'm trying to tell you that you don't. Fps performance is hard data based on things like visual fidelity. There's no way around it.

What I take away from this is that whoever wrote and approved the spreadsheet with the official specs, especially the "ideal" specs, should be fired.

If you go out of your way to publish not only recommended but ideal specs, then I expect the game to run with these ideal specs with at least a solid 30fps on Full HD in EVERY situation, no matter how much weather, scenery or AI you throw at it on Ultra settings.

That is not the case it seems, therefore the ideal specs are not ideal, or the game is badly optimized once more.

Edited July 30, 20205 yr by Farlis

24 minutes ago, Farlis said:

What I take away from this is that whoever wrote and approved the spreadsheet with the official specs, especially the "ideal" specs, should be fired.

If you go out of your way to publish not only recommended but ideal specs, then I expect the game to run with these ideal specs with at least a solid 30fps on Full HD in EVERY situation, no matter how much weather, scenery or AI you throw at it on Ultra settings.

That is not the case it seems, therefore the ideal specs are not ideal, or the game is badly optimized once more.

Or your expectations are not realistic... have you considered that possibility?

😉

28 minutes ago, Slides said:

And I'm trying to tell you that you don't. Fps performance is hard data based on things like visual fidelity. There's no way around it.

Right, I'll try to explain it to you without the use of crayons...

Someone posted that we would have to resign ourselves to low FPS on flight sims, I wrote that FS2 can get 200 fps on a low end PC, someone said FS2 looked bad, I said the point is it could simulate flight at 200 fps. Thus, in context the comment, it was related to FPS.

Is that straightforward enough for you to follow, or do you want me to get those crayons out after all?

Edited July 30, 20205 yr by Chock